Would you have called INT?

[DaveASA/FED]

Ok had an ASA 12U rec game Saturday and called batter INT twice, 1st was easy play at plate and ball hits batter in back while she is standing in batters box. VERY next batter passed ball and F2 goes to throw but batter has turned (like a plate ump opening up) to allow R1 to get the plate but is standing in the box blocking access for the throw, F2 gets ball, turns and starts to throw but seeing batter holds ball through throwing motion (didn't pump actually held ball as made throwing motion) well IMO there was time to have a play on R1 and F2 didn't throw because of the batter in the box, so I called it. No complaints and coaches had discussion with entire team about how they need to get out of the way.

But now the question would you all have required the throw to get INT?

[youngump]

Personally, I'd rather the catcher not throw the ball into the batters back from 10 feet away. This could precipitate other problems.
________
Vaporgenie Lowest Price

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

But now the question would you all have required the throw to get INT?

Not necessarily, but I'd need to see that the defense was actually making a play that the batter interfered with. It sounds like, in your judgment, you had that.

[SRW]

Did the batter:

P. hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box?
Q. actively hindering the catcher while in the batter’s box.
R. intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter’s box.

If so, call the batter out.

Edited due to the spelling mafia.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

Did the batter:

P. hinder the catcher from catching or throwing the ball by stepping out of the batter’s box?
Q. actively hindering the catcher while in the batter’s box.
R. intentionally interfere with a thrown ball, in or out of the batter’s box.

If so, call the bater out.

Get the batter, too!

[canump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Get the batter, too!

Ya you only the batter on the INT, ( I'm assuming your rule is similar to ours where the person committing the INT is out and runners return to last base touched ). So batter out R1 back to 3rd or correct me if I'm wrong

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by canump

Ya you only the batter on the INT, ( I'm assuming your rule is similar to ours where the person committing the INT is out and runners return to last base touched ). So batter out R1 back to 3rd or correct me if I'm wrong

He was making a joke about the misspelling in the previous post.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Get the batter, too!

I guess that makes you the "bater", no that would be "baiter".

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok had an ASA 12U rec game Saturday and called batter INT twice, 1st was easy play at plate and ball hits batter in back while she is standing in batters box. VERY next batter passed ball and F2 goes to throw but batter has turned (like a plate ump opening up) to allow R1 to get the plate but is standing in the box blocking access for the throw, F2 gets ball, turns and starts to throw but seeing batter holds ball through throwing motion (didn't pump actually held ball as made throwing motion) well IMO there was time to have a play on R1 and F2 didn't throw because of the batter in the box, so I called it. No complaints and coaches had discussion with entire team about how they need to get out of the way.

But now the question would you all have required the throw to get INT?

Thats what your judgement is for. All you can go on is do you think the play coiuld have been made. Kind of like when a runner runs infront of a player making a play on the ball. If it startles the player making the play that you thought would have made the play not being startled then call the Interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

Kind of like when a runner runs infront of a player making a play on the ball. If it startles the player making the play that you thought would have made the play not being startled then call the Interference

I don't think so. That is too broad a statement.

[softballistough]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't think so. That is too broad a statement.

Please clarify Irishmafia. When is a runner running in front of a fielder interfering and when is she not?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by softballistough

Please clarify Irishmafia. When is a runner running in front of a fielder interfering and when is she not?

It is interference when the runner commits an act of interference. Simply running in front of a fielder is nothing more than doing what s/he is supposed to be doing. Same thing with leaping over the ball. If done in full stride, it is nothing more than the runner advancing to the next base.

Now, if the runner hesitates/stops to time their passing in front with that of the ball, then the runner is no longer attempting to advance, but to interfere with the fielder. If the runner makes any physical move not associated with their natural running fashion, that could be interference. If a runner screams or verbally distracts the fielder, that could be interference.

There is no rule stating that a runner must forfeit their right to advance to the next base because there is a batted in the vicinity, just that the runner no interfere with the fielder attempting to field the batted ball.

[canump]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

He was making a joke about the misspelling in the previous post.

I sure do appalogise as I was only glancing thru. Sitting here at work, dealing with these customer's, trying to eat lunch and enjoy some of these postings.
I know spelling isn't one my better traits either but who said umps need proper spelling.
Keep it up guys / gals.

[softballistough]

Thanks Irish, We sure got screwed a couple years ago in the State Championships when a runner jumped over a ball to avoid getting hit.